Rival11

Now that's a good line!!

Mike Lowrey

Thanks. Can't remember where I saw that, but I thought it was pretty much on target.

El-Kabong

Damn, thats what I get for playing City of Heroes all day long! I miss out on stuff like this. Ah well. . . .

Oh please - it is a documentary film-makers job to put his subject matter (whatever it may by) in the best light possible, to spin what he is trying to say. Has been ever since the first documentary hit the silver screen.

But lets assume for a second that EVERY frame of film is edited, doctored and otherwise altered to lie like a rug. The long continuous (aka - unedited) shot of Chuck Heston walking away as Moore said "Hey, how about looking at this picture of this dead girl" made more of a point than the rest of the movie. Done in one take, with no possible editing.

The whole point of the movie summed up in one shot - and there's no way for him to lie about it, now is there?

DVD Smurf

Source?

DVD Smurf

So you have seen it, how is it?

Review please...

DVD Smurf

This thread is one reason why I want to see it...

Keep it coming...

Mike Lowrey

Don't need to see it. Already know how it ends.

3000 people are killed by Islamo-Fascists who have zero tolerance for anyone that is not like them.

chanster

Source?
Read the NyTimes article and then Michael Moore's entry about it.
The Times article has this paragraph:

That is the only time that "tax cut" rumor was mentioned in the article. Disney denied it, and there was no independent confirmation.

So today, Michael Moore proudly points out proudly on his site:

First off thats a loose interpretation of "reporting" The NYtimes article contains an allegation from Moore via his agent regarding the tax cut conspiracy. This is not the Times doing an investigative piece with independent confirmation of why Disney doesn't want to distribute the film. So Moore basically uses the fact that there was an article about it to substantiate his allegation about the "tax cut" reason.

So basically, he is quoting himself and using it as proof. The reason, most likely, is that Disney does not want to piss off half of America.

But the Michael Moore dittoheads will only see what they want to see.

reubs82

What's this? An Aubie and a UGA guy agreeing?

I thought the same thing when I heard this on "All Things Considered" today. Michael Moore is a whiney little bitch who didn't even mention the fact that Disney has altered a number of their titles so as not to offend the public. If he would just present more than his side of a story I may have an inkling of respect for him.

He says Disney is trying to cover themselves up and Bush is trying to use a national tragedy to further his own agenda. I'd say the titles to both this film and his previous mockumentary both sought to capitalize on national events and further his own cause.

Jackskeleton

Exactly. I'm usually really open minded when it comes to MOORE material and I often defend him, but in this instance he doesn't get any love from me. Disney is making a business choice. Nothing wrong in that.

Dr. DVD

Yep. Always count on Jack to defend business over art. Screw the right thing if it won't make money, that's how Hollywood does it.

Jackskeleton

yes, it is how hollywood does it. Folks need to get that reality slapped into them before they come here with those "Hollywood dreams" in their minds.

Rival11

......and then make Titanic.

Dr. DVD

That's why I will refrain from coming for a long time.



I just realized how that comment could be grossly misinterpreted if people are familiar with the Mature forum posts I make.

Rival11

Naw - you're just in the grey area on that one Doc.

Jackskeleton

Seems Moore knew disney wouldn't allow it to be distributed by miramax all along

http://www.marccooper.com/

wmansir

I saw a report ( I think on CNN, but not the one I mentioned in the Other thread), where they read an excerpt from Disneys response that expanded on this point. It said that a year ago Moore was informed that Disney would not be distributing this film and the he was welcome to find an alternate distributor, or distribute it himself.

I wonder why he waited until now to make a big fuss of it?

talemyn

Well, I did get my MBA at UGA.

Besides, we can be civil . . . but if you had been from UA or UF, I might have had to change my position on the subject.

RayChuang

Folks,

After reading this entire message thread, we have to consider the following:

1. Moore's two films, Roger & Me and Bowling for Columbine, are full of factual errors and facts "twisted" to support Moore's personal political agenda. This is why these two movies are much-criticized even to this day. Given Moore's personal agenda, Fahrenheit 9/11 could make his two earlier works seem mild by comparison.

2. Disney--which has suffered many public-relations fiascos in the last few years (severely cutting back Feature Animation, ABC's poor performance, poor attendence at its theme parks, recent film fiascos like The Alamo, losing Pixar as a partner, the resignation of Roy E. Disney and Stanley Gold, and so on), does NOT need another PR fiasco with Miramax releasing Fahrenheit 9/11. There would be such a public outrage that a consumer boycott against all Disney properties becomes a real possibility, and boy would that really hurt Disney's bottom line! Hey, Michael Eisner has to take care of the company's bottom line, and releasing Michael Moore's latest film is NOT the way to do it.

Jackskeleton

Not to mention it was never ment to distribute his film. So I don't see why he's making issue of it now?

drjay

I'm not a big fan of all this use of the word "agenda". Moore is using his medium of choice in order to express his viewpoint, and try to convince others to see things the way he sees them. This is in the spirit of a debate. I see what he is saying as really just one side of this debate, with no response (in this case, a Right Wing response) within the given medium of film. Why can't the Left use film to express their viewpoints when the Right gets to express their equally distorted viewpoints in the State of the Union Address? I'm just glad there's someone like Moore around to balance out the bullsh!t emitted by the Bush Administration. In any case, I don't think there's much difference between a Moore film and a political ad: they're both full of spin-doctored truths taken far out of context. I sure as hell don't take either as fact.

The fact that Moore is such a master of this type of cross-platform (press & film) campaigning really pisses off the people with differing viewpoints, probably because he's the only one who's really good at it. I mean who has the audacity to pull such a dirty little stunt with the NYTimes? If I were on the Right, I know I'd be pissed if some single filmmaker was doing a better job at manipulating the media than the Press Secretary plus staff.

I'd bet everything I own that this is just a publicity stunt to hype the film, but it's working, so more power to him. Most extremist politicos tend to have a counterpart on the other end of the spectrum; O'Reilly has Franken, etc. I'd like it if the Right generated someone in the film industry to balance out Moore so that people stop shouting "He's an admitted socialist!" as if socialist actually means child-molester.

Shannon Nutt

This is an interesting thread...I'd always wondered who would get bashed more in a topic between Moore and Disney - since both are hated on this forum. Looks like people hate Moore more than they hate Disney - interesting. Maybe George Lucas will offer to distribute the movie...which would make a REALLY interesting thread!

custom001

I bet at least WE get to see it in Europe.

wageslave

... If it pisses off Jeb Bush I'm all for seeing this movie

Jaymole

In my lifetime, I would love to be able to one day piss off as many conservatives as Micael Moore does.

I can only hope & dream.